Righties terrorism vs hate crime paradox .

[Timmy]

cons can you explain the logic behind these talking points :

Righties are against hate crime laws . Why? Because it's "thought police " and who care what the perp is thinking. The crime is the crime. (Example : murder)

BUT , if someone commits a crime with the thought of being a terrorist, suddenly what the perp is thinking is a big deal.

Two real life examples .

Man kills a bunch of black church goers in an attempt to start a race war . Not terrorism. Hate crimes not needed because murder is murder .

Man hits French policeman yelling "this is for Syria " = terrorism .

Isn't terrorism the same "thought crime " as hate crime?

 

[TNHarley]

terrorism is usually a planned attack to draw attention to something political.
hate crime is something to inflict harm on a particular identifying group.
Hate crime is also considered an "additional charge" to a crime you committed. Terrorism isn't.

 

[Timmy]

terrorism is usually a planned attack to draw attention to something political.
hate crime is something to inflict harm on a particular identifying group.
Hate crime is also considered an "additional charge" to a crime you committed. Terrorism isn't.

Terrorism is an additional charge .

 

[TNHarley]

terrorism is usually a planned attack to draw attention to something political.
hate crime is something to inflict harm on a particular identifying group.
Hate crime is also considered an "additional charge" to a crime you committed. Terrorism isn't.

Terrorism is an additional charge .

Even if, the other distinctions are enough.

 

[Harry Dresden]

cons can you explain the logic behind these talking points :

Righties are against hate crime laws . Why? Because it's "thought police " and who care what the perp is thinking. The crime is the crime. (Example : murder)

BUT , if someone commits a crime with the thought of being a terrorist, suddenly what the perp is thinking is a big deal.

Two real life examples .

Man kills a bunch of black church goers in an attempt to start a race war . Not terrorism. Hate crimes not needed because murder is murder .

Man hits French policeman yelling "this is for Syria " = terrorism .

Isn't terrorism the same "thought crime " as hate crime?

there is no need for "hate' crime laws.....if you commit a violent crime against someone you should get the max penalty....any violent act against another human being is a hate crime in itself.....and im not talking self defense....

 

[TNHarley]

cons can you explain the logic behind these talking points :

Righties are against hate crime laws . Why? Because it's "thought police " and who care what the perp is thinking. The crime is the crime. (Example : murder)

BUT , if someone commits a crime with the thought of being a terrorist, suddenly what the perp is thinking is a big deal.

Two real life examples .

Man kills a bunch of black church goers in an attempt to start a race war . Not terrorism. Hate crimes not needed because murder is murder .

Man hits French policeman yelling "this is for Syria " = terrorism .

Isn't terrorism the same "thought crime " as hate crime?

there is no need for "hate' crime laws.....if you commit a violent crime against someone you should get the max penalty....any violent act against another human being is a hate crime in itself.....and im not talking self defense....

Yea, but hate crimes draw more hate.

 

[Harry Dresden]

cons can you explain the logic behind these talking points :

Righties are against hate crime laws . Why? Because it's "thought police " and who care what the perp is thinking. The crime is the crime. (Example : murder)

BUT , if someone commits a crime with the thought of being a terrorist, suddenly what the perp is thinking is a big deal.

Two real life examples .

Man kills a bunch of black church goers in an attempt to start a race war . Not terrorism. Hate crimes not needed because murder is murder .

Man hits French policeman yelling "this is for Syria " = terrorism .

Isn't terrorism the same "thought crime " as hate crime?

there is no need for "hate' crime laws.....if you commit a violent crime against someone you should get the max penalty....any violent act against another human being is a hate crime in itself.....and im not talking self defense....

Yea, but hate crimes draw more hate.

and violent crimes dont?....

 

[martybegan]

cons can you explain the logic behind these talking points :

Righties are against hate crime laws . Why? Because it's "thought police " and who care what the perp is thinking. The crime is the crime. (Example : murder)

BUT , if someone commits a crime with the thought of being a terrorist, suddenly what the perp is thinking is a big deal.

Two real life examples .

Man kills a bunch of black church goers in an attempt to start a race war . Not terrorism. Hate crimes not needed because murder is murder .

Man hits French policeman yelling "this is for Syria " = terrorism .

Isn't terrorism the same "thought crime " as hate crime?

You can prosecute both as severely as you want without having to resort to Hate Crime laws. The act is primary, and the motivation is secondary, Also motivation is also more about pre-meditation, and gain, as well as state of mind. It's why we punish things like pre-meditated murder for hire more severely than some guy who freaks out seeing his wife with another man in bed and pops them both.

The issue with hate crime law as an extension to other existing laws, is that sooner or later proponents will drop the pretense of needing another crime and just try to criminalize the "hate"

 

[TNHarley]

cons can you explain the logic behind these talking points :

Righties are against hate crime laws . Why? Because it's "thought police " and who care what the perp is thinking. The crime is the crime. (Example : murder)

BUT , if someone commits a crime with the thought of being a terrorist, suddenly what the perp is thinking is a big deal.

Two real life examples .

Man kills a bunch of black church goers in an attempt to start a race war . Not terrorism. Hate crimes not needed because murder is murder .

Man hits French policeman yelling "this is for Syria " = terrorism .

Isn't terrorism the same "thought crime " as hate crime?

there is no need for "hate' crime laws.....if you commit a violent crime against someone you should get the max penalty....any violent act against another human being is a hate crime in itself.....and im not talking self defense....

Yea, but hate crimes draw more hate.

and violent crimes dont?....

labeling it with another divider causes more uproar.
Throw race or religion it and another few million people get pissed.

 

[Harry Dresden]

cons can you explain the logic behind these talking points :

Righties are against hate crime laws . Why? Because it's "thought police " and who care what the perp is thinking. The crime is the crime. (Example : murder)

BUT , if someone commits a crime with the thought of being a terrorist, suddenly what the perp is thinking is a big deal.

Two real life examples .

Man kills a bunch of black church goers in an attempt to start a race war . Not terrorism. Hate crimes not needed because murder is murder .

Man hits French policeman yelling "this is for Syria " = terrorism .

Isn't terrorism the same "thought crime " as hate crime?

there is no need for "hate' crime laws.....if you commit a violent crime against someone you should get the max penalty....any violent act against another human being is a hate crime in itself.....and im not talking self defense....

Yea, but hate crimes draw more hate.

and violent crimes dont?....

labeling it with another divider causes more uproar.
Throw race or religion it and another few million people get pissed.

thats the mindset of the more stupid among us....if a guy robs a liqueur store and on the way out he turns and calls the clerk an ethnic slur and shoots the clerk dead,should he get more time than if he just turned and shot the guy dead without saying anything?.......i sure as hell dont think so....in either case life in prison without parole OR if on camera,the death penalty,and i mean within 5 years....none of this 25 years on death row shit....

 

[Timmy]

cons can you explain the logic behind these talking points :

Righties are against hate crime laws . Why? Because it's "thought police " and who care what the perp is thinking. The crime is the crime. (Example : murder)

BUT , if someone commits a crime with the thought of being a terrorist, suddenly what the perp is thinking is a big deal.

Two real life examples .

Man kills a bunch of black church goers in an attempt to start a race war . Not terrorism. Hate crimes not needed because murder is murder .

Man hits French policeman yelling "this is for Syria " = terrorism .

Isn't terrorism the same "thought crime " as hate crime?

there is no need for "hate' crime laws.....if you commit a violent crime against someone you should get the max penalty....any violent act against another human being is a hate crime in itself.....and im not talking self defense....

Yea, but hate crimes draw more hate.

and violent crimes dont?....

labeling it with another divider causes more uproar.
Throw race or religion it and another few million people get pissed.

thats the mindset of the more stupid among us....if a guy robs a liqueur store and on the way out he turns and calls the clerk an ethnic slur and shoots the clerk dead,should he get more time than if he just turned and shot the guy dead without saying anything?.......i sure as hell dont think so....in either case life in prison without parole OR if on camera,the death penalty,and i mean within 5 years....none of this 25 years on death row shit....

Not true . You'd have to prove that was his motive .

 

[Luddly Neddite]

cons can you explain the logic behind these talking points :

Righties are against hate crime laws . Why? Because it's "thought police " and who care what the perp is thinking. The crime is the crime. (Example : murder)

BUT , if someone commits a crime with the thought of being a terrorist, suddenly what the perp is thinking is a big deal.

Two real life examples .

Man kills a bunch of black church goers in an attempt to start a race war . Not terrorism. Hate crimes not needed because murder is murder .

Man hits French policeman yelling "this is for Syria " = terrorism .

Isn't terrorism the same "thought crime " as hate crime?

there is no need for "hate' crime laws.....if you commit a violent crime against someone you should get the max penalty....any violent act against another human being is a hate crime in itself.....and im not talking self defense....

Yea, but hate crimes draw more hate.

and violent crimes dont?....

labeling it with another divider causes more uproar.
Throw race or religion it and another few million people get pissed.

thats the mindset of the more stupid among us....if a guy robs a liqueur store and on the way out he turns and calls the clerk an ethnic slur and shoots the clerk dead,should he get more time than if he just turned and shot the guy dead without saying anything?.......i sure as hell dont think so....in either case life in prison without parole OR if on camera,the death penalty,and i mean within 5 years....none of this 25 years on death row shit....

I used to agree with that --- That we should simply charge the doer for whatever the crime is rather than who the victim is.

BUT, if it had been a "white" church, Dylan Roof would not have murdered the worshipers.

I would also like to think that white supremacists and other rabid right wingers might hesitate to do the crime if they knew the charge would be more but I doubt that.

Its not just that haters gotta hate. Its that these haters are down right crazy.

 

[Godboy]

cons can you explain the logic behind these talking points :

Righties are against hate crime laws . Why? Because it's "thought police " and who care what the perp is thinking. The crime is the crime. (Example : murder)

BUT , if someone commits a crime with the thought of being a terrorist, suddenly what the perp is thinking is a big deal.

Two real life examples .

Man kills a bunch of black church goers in an attempt to start a race war . Not terrorism. Hate crimes not needed because murder is murder .

Man hits French policeman yelling "this is for Syria " = terrorism .

Isn't terrorism the same "thought crime " as hate crime?

Im a righty who LOVES hate crime laws, as long as they are applied equally to all races. They are often just reserved for white males though. Regardless, i still support the concept of it.

 

[Harry Dresden]

there is no need for "hate' crime laws.....if you commit a violent crime against someone you should get the max penalty....any violent act against another human being is a hate crime in itself.....and im not talking self defense....

Yea, but hate crimes draw more hate.

and violent crimes dont?....

labeling it with another divider causes more uproar.
Throw race or religion it and another few million people get pissed.

thats the mindset of the more stupid among us....if a guy robs a liqueur store and on the way out he turns and calls the clerk an ethnic slur and shoots the clerk dead,should he get more time than if he just turned and shot the guy dead without saying anything?.......i sure as hell dont think so....in either case life in prison without parole OR if on camera,the death penalty,and i mean within 5 years....none of this 25 years on death row shit....

Not true . You'd have to prove that was his motive .

prove what motive?....if you can kill someone for whatever reason just like that,that means you hate.....maximum sentencing...

 

[Harry Dresden]

there is no need for "hate' crime laws.....if you commit a violent crime against someone you should get the max penalty....any violent act against another human being is a hate crime in itself.....and im not talking self defense....

Yea, but hate crimes draw more hate.

and violent crimes dont?....

labeling it with another divider causes more uproar.
Throw race or religion it and another few million people get pissed.

thats the mindset of the more stupid among us....if a guy robs a liqueur store and on the way out he turns and calls the clerk an ethnic slur and shoots the clerk dead,should he get more time than if he just turned and shot the guy dead without saying anything?.......i sure as hell dont think so....in either case life in prison without parole OR if on camera,the death penalty,and i mean within 5 years....none of this 25 years on death row shit....

I used to agree with that --- That we should simply charge the doer for whatever the crime is rather than who the victim is.

BUT, if it had been a "white" church, Dylan Roof would not have murdered the worshipers.

I would also like to think that white supremacists and other rabid right wingers might hesitate to do the crime if they knew the charge would be more but I doubt that.

Its not just that haters gotta hate. Its that these haters are down right crazy.

ludd what difference does it make if the guy murdered the guy because he is black or if he was white?....a murder was committed so max sentencing...or if it was just a violent attack,it dont matter if the guy was black, gay or lilly white....a violent crime against another person should be met with long sentences with NO parole or getting out for so called "good behavior"........Zero tolerance for violence against another person.....you serve every dam minute of your sentence...........

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

 

[tyroneweaver]

terrorism is usually a planned attack to draw attention to something political.
hate crime is something to inflict harm on a particular identifying group.
Hate crime is also considered an "additional charge" to a crime you committed. Terrorism isn't.

Terrorism is an additional charge .

You sound like schwartze in Christmas story with the triple dog dare

 

[Timmy]

cons can you explain the logic behind these talking points :

Righties are against hate crime laws . Why? Because it's "thought police " and who care what the perp is thinking. The crime is the crime. (Example : murder)

BUT , if someone commits a crime with the thought of being a terrorist, suddenly what the perp is thinking is a big deal.

Two real life examples .

Man kills a bunch of black church goers in an attempt to start a race war . Not terrorism. Hate crimes not needed because murder is murder .

Man hits French policeman yelling "this is for Syria " = terrorism .

Isn't terrorism the same "thought crime " as hate crime?

Im a righty who LOVES hate crime laws, as long as they are applied equally to all races. They are often just reserved for white males though. Regardless, i still support the concept of it.

What are you basing that on?

 

[Timmy]

Yea, but hate crimes draw more hate.

and violent crimes dont?....

labeling it with another divider causes more uproar.
Throw race or religion it and another few million people get pissed.

thats the mindset of the more stupid among us....if a guy robs a liqueur store and on the way out he turns and calls the clerk an ethnic slur and shoots the clerk dead,should he get more time than if he just turned and shot the guy dead without saying anything?.......i sure as hell dont think so....in either case life in prison without parole OR if on camera,the death penalty,and i mean within 5 years....none of this 25 years on death row shit....

Not true . You'd have to prove that was his motive .

prove what motive?....if you can kill someone for whatever reason just like that,that means you hate.....maximum sentencing...

Crime is all about motive .

A shoots B . That could be justified homicide (not a crime at all) or all the way to 1st degree murder! . The act is the same , whether it's even a crime depends on motive .

Some states have "capitol murder" if you kill a cop. I don't see righties upset about those laws .

 

[Harry Dresden]

and violent crimes dont?....

labeling it with another divider causes more uproar.
Throw race or religion it and another few million people get pissed.

thats the mindset of the more stupid among us....if a guy robs a liqueur store and on the way out he turns and calls the clerk an ethnic slur and shoots the clerk dead,should he get more time than if he just turned and shot the guy dead without saying anything?.......i sure as hell dont think so....in either case life in prison without parole OR if on camera,the death penalty,and i mean within 5 years....none of this 25 years on death row shit....

Not true . You'd have to prove that was his motive .

prove what motive?....if you can kill someone for whatever reason just like that,that means you hate.....maximum sentencing...

Crime is all about motive .

A shoots B . That could be justified homicide (not a crime at all) or all the way to 1st degree murder! . The act is the same , whether it's even a crime depends on motive .

Some states have "capitol murder" if you kill a cop. I don't see righties upset about those laws .

Crime is all about motive
i dont care what A's motive is,if he is committing a violent crime against B and kills the guy....he gets the max sentence.....remember i said above self defense is different....